April 16, 2008

4/16: The More Things Change...

Lately, every day feels like Groundhog Day in the political blogosphere. Conservative bloggers continue to direct most of their fire at Barack Obama, portraying him as an out-of-touch elitist with radical views. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are simultaneously defending Obama against these attacks while going on offense against John McCain, portraying him as an unabashed hawk, an economic ignoramus, and a hypocrite on campaign finance reform. However, it's apparent that the anti-Obama narrative is getting far more play in the mainstream media. Chris Bowers thinks this will change once Hillary Clinton leaves the race, but it's far from clear when (and if) that will happen.

DEM FIELD: Kos Tells The Superdelegates What's Up

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas pushes back against the Clinton camp's electability arguments: "The Clinton concern trolls (see Bayh, Evan) are fond of telling us all the things the super delegates should consider when choosing between Clinton and Obama. For example, they're supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate because Obama's preacher said something craaaazy that one time. Then they're supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate because Obama quoted Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas -- even though the book was the darling of the progressive establishment in 2005 and no one accused Frank of being 'elitist' back then, those Clinton concern trolls quoting the book's themes approvingly (see Clinton, Bill)."

Moulitsas continues: "But that game looks like fun. Here, let me have a turn! Here's some things the supers should consider when making their decisions: (1.) When a Democrat has message discipline with the Republican nominee and the entire VRWC, perhaps there's some disconnect? Notice how McCain and Fox News didn't pile on Clinton after her Bosnia fantasies. The reason is obvious -- the VRWC doesn't want Obama to win. It's cute that Clinton and her former (and future) tormentors have all found temporary common ground against Obama, but let's not fool ourselves that this is anything more than a situational alliance. (2.) [...] Who do you think is more 'electable'? The candidate people like, or the candidate people don't like? (3.) Nationally, Obama is increasing his leads over Clinton. Perhaps it's because people really don't like to be told that they're 'optimistic' about being screwed over economically."

DEM FIELD II: Who's More Electable?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing John Judis' article in The New Republic, in which Judis argues that Obama is dangerously vulnerable in "the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri":

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat finds Judis' argument compelling: "Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos. This is why Hillary is more electable in PA, OH, FL and MI. The question is, as John Judis discusses, what does this mean about Obama's electability in November? The 'creative class' has never taken this argument seriously, even applauding such idiotic Obama moves like blocking revotes in FL and MI."
• Obsidian Wings' publius critiques Judis' argument: "I'm a bit underwhelmed by John Judis's argument that Obama will struggle with working class whites in industrial swing states. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think he focuses too narrowly on Obama. The fundamental problem is that any Democrat -- not just Obama -- will struggle with this group of voters in the general. [John] Kerry did, just like [Al] Gore before him. But what really bothers me is Judis's largely-unspoken implication that Clinton would do better on this front. It'd be different if the remaining choices were John Edwards versus Obama. But that's not the choice. And the idea that working class swing voters -- particularly men -- are going to flock to Clinton over Obama in the general doesn't strike me as very plausible. What does strike me as plausible is that Clinton would ultimately do about as well, except that it would be more than offset by an energized conservative base and a depressed liberal base."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks Judis is underestimating Obama's chances: "Elections are mostly determined by the fundamentals, and the fundamentals are against McCain. On top of that, Democrats have the more charismatic nominee. I look at national polling that shows Obama in a 45-45 tie with McCain, which is a very bad result for a de facto incumbent, and a terrible result for someone facing such a favorable campaign dynamic. We are, right now, at this very moment, witnessing the peak of McCain's electoral stock -- a time when Hillary Clinton is beating up Obama on a daily basis, and virtually no Americans have been exposed to the Democrats' anti-McCain messaging. Anything can happen, in principle, but if someone forced you to make an even odds bet on the outcome of this election, I don't think there can be any serious debate about what the smart play is."

CLINTON: By Any Means Necessary

Liberal bloggers continue to condemn Clinton's aggressive campaign tactics:

• Ezra Klein: "Whether you believe Hillary's chances of wresting the nomination are, as her advisers said a few weeks ago, 10 percent, or maybe, more optimistically, 30 percent, she's still got an uphill path to the nomination. Which makes the glee with which she's been drilling Obama on his 'bitter' comments a bit unsettling. Whether you're talking the ads in a general election swing state or the e-mails meant to convince the press corps that Obama is an 'elitist,' she's still running against the likely Democratic nominee, and beating the tar out of him in a way that's almost certain to linger beyond the primary. Obviously, if you assume her incentives are purely to maximize the chance that she wins the nomination, a full-out assault makes some sense (though it can also backfire). But if you think that her strategy for winning the nomination should, in theory, be balanced by her concern for the chances of the likely Democratic nominee in November, then this stuff could prove dangerous."
• The Huffington Post's Robert Creamer thinks Clinton's tactics will backfire: "I've talked to a number of undecided Super Delegate Members of Congress who are furious at her willingness to attack the candidate who they consider almost certain to be the Democratic nominee. Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are 'elitists' who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. [...] We've already seen examples of high profile Super Delegates (like Bill Richardson) who have gone with Obama partially because of Clinton's negativism. We'll likely see many more."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[Clinton] won't win North Carolina, Indiana will be so close as to give marginal gains, and all she has is this last hope that she can knee-cap him and get it from the supers. Of course, she most likely won't succeed, and instead we will have a crippled Obama limping into the general against a united Republican party armed with a half year of Clinton video clips calling Obama elitist and out of touch and unelectable and stating she takes him at his word that he is not a stealth muslim. By the end of the week I fully expect her to be asking whether or not he is a Marxist."

Unsurprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is also disgusted by Clinton's tactics: "Answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain...but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two? [...] Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them."

OBAMA: Weathering The Storm?

Several liberal bloggers are looking at PA polls and national polls and concluding that Obama has survived the "Bittergate" controversy without suffering too much damage:

• Open Left's Bowers: "There are three new post 'bittergate' Pennsylvania polls this morning, from Rasmussen, Survey USA, and Quinnipiac. The three-poll average comes out to 51.3%--41.7%. The three previous, pre-'bittergate' polls from these same polling outfits produced an identical average of 51.3%--41.7%. Obama's remarks do not appear to have any impact on the campaign so far, except possibly to slow his upward momentum. However, even that possibility is hypothetical, since public opinion is not tied to the laws of physics. There is no gravitational force that indicates public opinion will continue to move in a given direction once it has started to move in that direction."
• Daily Kos' DHinMI goes even further: "Some have tried to spin the ['bitter'] flap as stopping Obama's momentum, but it's not clear there was any momentum prior to last Friday. PA has appeared stable for about 10 days or more."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "As Jonathan [Singer] asked yesterday: 'weren't Obama's comments supposed to hurt him?' While there is some evidence that they have at least for the moment in Pennsylvania, nationally there is absolutely no sign of any effect in Clinton's favor in the Democratic primary race. Quite the contrary. Following up on Obama's 10 point lead in yesterday's Gallup daily tracking poll, today's Rasmussen has Obama leaping to a 9 point lead 50-41, a 10-point flip toward Obama in 2 days. [...] Now, it should be noted that these are national numbers, so not necessarily reflective of the sentiment in the ten final upcoming contests where Hillary really is hoping to win over voters, but the national trends are instructive as to the general feeling among Democratic voters nationwide and it's clear she's simply been unable to rattle confidence in Obama."

TPM's Josh Marshall thinks the effect could be delayed: "[A TPM] reader notes that the Clinton camp's aim in pushing the 'bitter' stuff is not so much to stoke resentment which, if it actually exists, shows little sign of moving the numbers but rather to keep ginning it up in the rolling pundit conversation to create a negative drumbeat of news for Obama. That could well show up in the polls by next week or simply hold Obama in place and prevent him for making any more gains."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Sam Boyd is impressed by Obama's counterpunching skills: "Ben Smith points out that Obama has done a great job in this and other crises to fight back and make 'gaffes' less damaging than they might have been. This is something liberal writers have been clamoring for for years, but it's great to see it in action and I think Obama has gotten too little credit for it."

OBAMA II: ...Or Is He Doomed?

Many conservative bloggers, in contrast, seem to feel that Obama's comments have provided Clinton with a huge opening in the nomination race:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Three polls out in Pennsylvania show a Clinton lead ranging from six to fourteen points. (A noteworthy fact: the poll with the smallest lead includes several days of surveying before Snob-gate broke.) Clinton is also showing a bump in Indiana. This is a far cry from last week, when Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania seemed to be evaporating under Barack Obama's withering TV-ad assault and the fallout from her own repressed Bosnia memories. Pundits can question whether Obama's momentum had already slowed before he insulted the state. But a loss, especially a double-digit loss, has to be attributed in part to his blunder."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[Obama's] inexperience is showing. For a week he's been trying to change the message by talking about what he said. Big mistake. He's only perpetuating the story and the headlines. It makes for great press for everyone else. The humorous bit of this is that the press, who love Obama, now realize they have to drown him with ink -- like cutting off a leg to save a body. It's the only way now, they see, to save their party. They are going to have to sacrifice Obama for the Democrats to take the White House. Their hopes for change are gone. Obama has made himself no longer viable a contender for the elusive middle class independent voters who both sides need. Already on the decline in Pennsylvania, look for North Carolina to shift too. Hillary Clinton is smart to hang in there."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Barack Obama's statement about 'clinging to guns and religion' is causing real divisions and anxiety in Democratic ranks. [...] Every day this story goes on is another doubt in the minds of superdelegates."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "To win, Hillary has to do the unthinkable: She has to be brutally honest with the voters about just how unelectable Obama is. Does she have it in her?"

OBAMA III: Pass The Brie And Chablis, Please

Conservative bloggers continue to portray Obama as an out-of-touch elitist:

• Michelle Malkin: "The odor of elitism is like onion breath: It's quick to acquire, hard to mask. Try as he might, Barack Obama cannot camouflage the political stink he exhaled when he dissed small-town Americans as 'bitter' Neanderthals 'clinging' to their guns, faith and belief in strict immigration enforcement. It wasn't the first time the effete Snob-ama revealed himself. In Philadelphia, he passed up the hometown cheesesteak -- gloppy, artery clogging and blue-collar (yum!) -- for a nibble of Spanish-imported, $100/pound ham. In Iowa, he moaned to voters about the price of arugula at Whole Foods market. (Fun fact: There aren't any Whole Foods markets in Iowa.) And at an Altoona bowling alley, he couldn't even score his age. Superficial but telling glimpses of a condescending core."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "The Obamas really are out-of-touch with the experiences of most of America. [...Michelle Obama] is clueless that an Ivy-League educated, $300,000 plus salaried lawyer in a $1.6 million house, cannot be a perpetual victim by virtue of her race. [...] Obama himself -- cf. 'typical white person', the Pennsylvania mess, and things like Wright and his church being 'not particularly controversial' -- likewise at 3-4-week intervals will say something that will be taken either as condescending or racialist. And in the aggregate these 'conflations' shown on evening news 'loops' and 'snippets' by August or so will cement the growing impression of uneasiness among the American people. Race has nothing to do with it; a certain smugness everything."
• Erickson: "More and more, all Obama is actually showing us is that his nose is turned up higher than the rest of us, and he actually thinks we are so dumb that he can get away with cynical little ploys. I think his 15 minutes are just about up."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Obama is [currently] talking about his humble roots to dispel the charge of elitism and snobbery. [...] But snobbery is less about income than it is about one's attitude towards other people -- most often expressed when one is among one's own (say, while drinking wine among San Francisco's elites)."

Other conservative bloggers are focusing on Obama's liberalism:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Obama was being perfectly authentic when he spoke his now famous words. Too bad authentic liberalism never wins elections."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "Obama['s] politics were formed at Columbia University and Harvard Law in the 1980s, both of which are situated in the premier bastions of cosmopolitan liberalism and [Ronald] Reagan hatred. [...] Obama's vision of America is bleak and dismal [and] is really a product of the 1980s urban and academic left which refused to believe that Reagan was doing anything good for the country, and constantly spun scenarios of a bleak and broken America where the Gordon Gekkos screw the little guys. He's not a black JFK or RFK. And he's not a black Reagan ([though] his own self-comparison to Reagan was telling). He's a black Mario Cuomo. Soaring rhetoric. Majestic sophistry. Conventional liberalism."

OBAMA IV: Is That A Flag Pin On Your Collar, Senator?

Righty bloggers are mocking Obama for wearing a flag pin given to him by a disabled veteran, after the IL senator declined to wear a flag pin last year:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Apparently, the great communicator wasn't communicating his patriotism very well. Is it any wonder, given his disdain for the middle class?"
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "I suspect he'll wear it the rest of the way to November and attempt to take the patriotism card off the table. How convenient."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I lost track of this very stupid story after the initial dust-up last October. [...] Conservatives naturally were blamed for making an issue of this last fall but in fact Obama's the one who politicized it by investing the pin with such grandiose meaning that he simply had to stop wearing it in good conscience. No other prominent Democratic critic of the war that I can think of has felt the need to divest him- or herself of the sort of symbolism that those small town yokels whom Obama has such affection for seem to appreciate so much."

MCCAIN: Stepping Over Sanford

NRO's David Freddoso reports that McCain is unlikely to pick SC Gov Mark Sanford as his running mate: "[Sanford] is still perceived by some (perhaps by many conservatives) to be a strong candidate for John McCain's vice presidential slot. The only problem is, he is not viewed so kindly in McCain circles. If Mitt Romney is a very long longshot for the spot, Sanford may be even longer. [He] was a McCain backer in 2000...but his reluctance to endorse McCain in a timely fashion this year was a major issue. Sanford has not shown public signs of craving the position, either. McCain insiders say that the real question is not whether Sanford will be vice president, but whether he was ever under serious consideration."

This news does not sit well with AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "[Freddoso's report] chafes me no end. Basically, it says that McCain won't consider Mark Sanford for Veep because of hard feelings about Sanford not endorsing McCain in the primaries this time after having done so in 2000. If this is true, it shows incredibly pettiness, arrogance, and stupidity on the part of the McCainiacs, very much in line with the overblown code of loyalty that led both Bushes to value loyalty and even sycophancy above merit. Just because Sanford endorsed McCain in 2000, as a congressman, doesn't mean he is obligated to do so again as a governor in 2008. [...] Look: If Sanford would make a good vice president and a good vice presidential candidate, it shouldn't matter one bleeping bit who he endorsed."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Boss Speaketh

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle reacts to Bruce Springsteen's endorsement of Obama:

"At this point, Bruce's fan base probably clings more to arugula than guns (and I say this as member of that fan base), but it's interesting that the 'troubadour of the working class' felt compelled to come out for Obama now. Of course, this just raises the question: If there was a musician whose endorsement could offset bittergate and help Obama in small-town America, who would it be? Toby Keith? Alan Jackson? Bret Michaels?"

LEST WE FORGET: Starbury For LVP

ESPN's Bill Simmons gives his 2007-08 "Least Valuable Player" Award to the Knicks' Stephon Marbury:

"Even before the season, Marbury looked like the favorite for my annual LVP ('Least Valuable Player') Award thanks to some peculiar TV interviews, a prominent role in the sexual harrassment suit against the Knicks and the inspiration for at least 50,000 fantasy team names that somehow involved the words 'truck' and 'party.' Then the season started and he splintered the Knicks during a vicious argument with Isiah Thomas that included the reported threat, 'He thinks he can [bleep] me, but I'll [bleep] him first.' [...] He played 24 games and participated in a whopping six victories (considering he makes $20 million, that's more than $3.3 million per victory), then took an extended leave of absence after his father's death and nobody cared if he came back. And finally, he opted for season-ending ankle surgery when he easily could have waited until the summer. We've had nuclear leaks that were remembered more positively than Marbury's 2007-08 season."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 16, 2008 12:53 PM